New from Cambridge University Press!

Edited By Keith Allan and Kasia M. Jaszczolt

This book "fills the unquestionable need for a comprehensive and up-to-date handbook on the fast-developing field of pragmatics" and "includes contributions from many of the principal figures in a wide variety of fields of pragmatic research as well as some up-and-coming pragmatists."

In her book Grammatical Voice M.H. Klaiman provides a definition of voiceas a category of the verb that is cross-linguistically valid and on thisbasis establishes a typology of voice systems. Voice is characterized asthe relationship between clausal predicates and nominal arguments orargument positions with their corresponding referents or thematic rolesmarked by means of verb morphology. In doing so the author tackles theproblem of delimiting voice phenomena from other categories and strategiesthat likewise operate in the domain of predicate-argument relations. Assuch the book is a major contribution to the study of verbal categories.The discussion takes a formally defined concept of voice as the basis,illustrates the range of associated functions and then goes on to identifyontological situation structure as the key to understanding the variationof voice systems.

SYNOPSIS

Chapter 1

The first chapter gives a brief historical overview of the study of voiceand then proceeds to define the category under investigation. Voice is characterised as a morphological mechanism operating in the domain ofpredicate-argument structure, which encompasses crucial concepts such astransitivity, thematic roles, the distribution of core- and non-core arguments.

The author proposes a preliminary threefold typology of voice systemsencountered in the languages of the world: derived voice, basic voice andpragmatic voice. Derived voice is introduced as a term for changes inverbal morphology that indicate changes in the allocation of nominalarguments to structural positions. This type involves a reconfiguration ofarguments and consequently grammatical functions. Passivization is thusclassified as derived voice, since it involves re-assignment of grammaticalfunctions, particularly to core arguments: The argument that is assignedthe role of patient is prototypically associated with the grammaticalfunction of object, while in a passive counterpart structure the very samereferent is associated with the subject. A common consequence of this isdetransitivization: The passive counterpart to an active sentence isintransitive, is has the patient encoded as the subject and the agentoptionally encoded as a non-core argument.

In contrast to this basic voice does without a change of valence. Basicvoice systems are characterised by the observation that different voiceeffects may obtain, even though subject and object retain their respectivefunction and/or structural position in the clause. Sentence pairs in agiven language that are marked for basic voice distinctions remain constantin the mapping of nominal arguments and grammatical functions. Parallel toderived voice, however, changes in the involvement of participants arelikewise expressed through basic voice systems. Verbally marked voicecontrasts in active-middle systems indicate the affectedness of the subjectby the action encoded in the verb. If there is a voice alternation, theparticipant that invariably functions as the subject is thus perceived asbeing affected by the verbal action in different degrees.

The third type of voice system proposed by the author involves marking ofdifferences in the propositional salience of arguments depending onpragmatic factors. That is to say the relative, i.e. perceived, importanceof a participant for the proposition to be conveyed in a clausal structureis reflected in marked voice contrasts. Voice contrasts in languages ofthis type fulfil functions such as interrogativity, focalisation andtopicalisation.

Chapter 2

This chapter examines a number of languages that employ basic voicesystems. It is revealed that all languages of this type have in common onlya subclass of verbs allows voice marking alternations, while others canonly function in predicates marked either for active or for middle voice.Hence an important function of the category voice is identified, namelythat of a classification parameter for lexical predicates based on theirinherent semantics. Voice alternations are shown to reflect affectedness ofthe subject referent, as in the following opposition from Fula (example(21), pp. 62-63):

In the (b) example the subject does not actively instigate the action, butis affected by it.

Basic voice systems do not involve a re-mapping of nominal position andthematic role. What is crucial is the affectedness of the participant thatis invariably encoded as the subject of a sentence. This becomes even moreapparent in the example from Tamil (example (27), p. 71):

The case marking of the subject remains constant in this opposition, butits referent is affected by the verbal action only in (a). The authorpoints out that the inherent semantics of each verb entail a certainlikelihood of affectedness on the part of the subject participant and basicvoice is a means to organize the verbal lexicon accordingly.

Chapter 3

The data presented in this chapter suggests that the basis forunderstanding basic voice alternations such as active-middle, weak-strongor active-stative as presented in chapter 2 is the nature of real-worldsituations and our common expectations about their structure (i.e. theoutcome of actions and events in relation to participants, the key termused being ontological salience). Voice alternations are shown to expressthe degree of control that a participant, particularly the subject, has onthe clausal action or its consequences in a given situation. This controlconstruct may become apparent as a lexical property of the verb, i.e. someverbs require the logical subject to be undergoer of its action rather thanagent. In transitive predications animacy is a relevant issue, sinceanimate entities are understood to have more potential for controlling averbally denoted process or its outcome. Cross-linguistic data is providedto support the claim that basic voice systems reflect the control hierarchy.

Chapter 4

This chapter presents the direct-inverse voice system, which ischaracterised as functionally similar to an active-passive system, but notat all identical. In contrast to the active-passive system of derivedvoice, direct-inverse systems are characterised as pragmatic voice. Thetransitivity of a verb is not altered in voice oppositions.Marked voice contrasts in languages that employ direct-inverse systemsindicate or are sensitive to the ontological salience of nominal argumentsdepending primarily on the factors referentiality, animacy and involvementin the discourse. Speech act participants (1Sg/Pl and 2Sg/Pl) are renderedmost salient, since they are maximally referential, animate and directlyinvolved in the discourse. On these grounds they are prototypically encodedas the logical subject in languages that employ direct-inverse voicecontrasts. If the referent is encoded as the logical object, this is markednot on the nominal but on the verb as a voice contrast. This type of voiceis therefore analyzed as pragmatic in nature. Consider the followingexample from Plains Cree (example (1), p. 162):

Both referents involved have the potential to scare one another. It is,however, argued that discourse participants have greater prominence for thespeaker, which is reflected in the voice contrast, i.e. first person pluralis assigned subject status directly, while 'dog' can only be assignedsubject status indirectly.

A number of languages are reanalyzed in the light of previously establishedvoice system characteristics. For instance it is revealed that theintricate system of person agreement in Tanoan languages can be accountedfor in terms of a direct-inverse voice system. Also a correlation betweendirect-inverse voice systems and head marking languages as well as lack ofcase is attested. Here voice functions as the sole indicator ofpredicate-argument relations. Klaiman reveals that pragmatic voice andderived voice may coexist in a given language. Thus languages that mark adirect-inverse distinction may as well allow, for instance, passivization.

Chapter 5

This chapter is devoted to yet another kind of pragmatic voice, whichencodes information about topic status and focalisation of nominalparticipants. Verbally marked contrasts therefore function as an indicatorof relevance of a nominal argument within a given discourse and conveyinterrogativity, topichood or focalisation. In contrast to the type ofpragmatic voice described in chapter 4 languages that employ this type ofvoice system do not adhere to hierarchies of ontological salience oranimacy when it comes to assigning statuses of subject or object. Ratherthis assignment depends entirely on informational salience, as in thefollowing opposition from Cebuano (example (25a,b), p. 247):

Data from the Mayan language family is used to illustrate the relationshipbetween derived voice behaviour and pragmatic function. It is shown that inthis language family derived voice, i.e. passivization, in fact functionsin the domain of discourse pragmatics. This is contrasted with Philippinelanguages, where voice indices of focus and topic are the only mechanismfor the encoding of predicate-argument relations.

Chapter 6

The author lays the foundations for a unified analysis of cross-linguisticvoice phenomena with a tentative formalization of the observationspresented in the previous chapters. The category of voice is characterizedas verbally marked alternations of assignment of arguments to positions ofsuperior ranking. This superiority in turn can be either relational orinformational. The formal mechanism is thus given a common functionalbasis, namely that of identifying and marking a hierarchy of participants.Accordingly the relevance of a certain hierarchy for voice markingconstitutes the proposed types. Generally speaking, derived voice issensitive to relations of structural positions, i.e. with logical subjectand object, basic voice is sensitive to a hierarchy of control andaffectedness and pragmatic voice is sensitive to a hierarchy of discoursesalience.

REMARKS

The main achievement of this study is the establishment and definition ofvoice as a cross-linguistically identifiable grammatical phenomenon withcommon formal and functional properties. In contrast to the somewhatnarrower views of voice (cf. Jespersen 1965, Fillmore 1968, Matthews 1974)the book establishes a comprehensive view of the category of voice andidentifies a number of grammatical effects as voice phenomena, arriving ata threefold typology of voice systems. It shows that in the light ofsufficient cross-linguistic data it becomes necessary to re-evaluatelongstanding assumptions about the nature and organization of voicephenomena. The focus is on those voice phenomena that go beyondpassivization, i.e. those that particularly call for a new definition ofparticipant roles and predicate-argument structure. The author claims thatin these systems, basic voice and pragmatic voice (types 2 and 3), thefunction of voice is to represent grammatically signalled variations in theconstrual of situations. Situations in turn can be characterised byparticipants being involved in events. The author further assumes a certainlikelihood of participant involvement organised in terms of hierarchies.Certain participants are thus expected to show a certain behaviour inrelation to the event based on their position on such a hierarchy. Anydeviation from this expected behaviour results in a grammatical effect,namely a voice contrast. Such a hierarchy is the ontological construct ofcontrol. Participants of a situation have an inherent capacity for beingthe likely controller of an action or its outcome effect. By the same tokenother participants have an inherent capacity for being an affected entity.By reference to abstract hierarchies of ontological concepts such aspotential control and actual control regulating the variety of codingstrategies of predicate-argument structure the author manages to provide adefinition of 'participant roles' in terms of expected real-worldsituations that allows a wider cross-linguistic applicability and thus toidentify a unified characterization of voice as a category of the verb.

As far as the presentation of this highly complex subject matter isconcerned, I would like to add a few comments: On page 42, Klaiman statesthat the emphasis is both on the 'varying functions of particular voicesystems, as well as on the category's status in the grammaticalorganization of languages'. Croft (1990: 17) states that there arebasically two directions of typological investigations and both may yieldtangible results:

'Significant typological generalizations can be found by examining whatfunctions are expressed by a given form just as much as by examining whatforms are used to express a given function.'

On the whole the basis for generalization in this study is a grammaticalmechanism, or in the author's words 'grammatical behaviour', that isidentified as recurrent across languages, namely that of morphologicalmarking on the verb signalling some change in the predicate-argumentrelation. This can be understood as a formal basis for investigation.However, since the initially proposed three classes of voice systems are tosome extent also defined in terms of functional domains such as lexicalverb class marking or clausal pragmatics, a strict directionality is notadhered to in the course of the study. This becomes apparent in thethree-way typology that serves as the starting point for discussion: Theconcepts ''derived voice'', ''basic voice'' are defined formally in terms ofmorphosyntactic behaviour. This is juxtaposed with ''pragmatic voice'', whichis defined in terms of function.

In chapter 5 Mayan mechanisms of derived voice are identified as pragmaticin function, so there is in fact an overlap of 'formal' and 'functionaltypes (see p. 239). Also in chapters 2 and 3 the path of investigationswitches from a survey of functions associated with a type of voicecontrast to a functional construct, that of participant control, beinganalyzed in terms of variation of morphosyntactic coding strategies. It isonly in the final chapter 6 that the common basis is identified, namely theimportance of some (ontological) hierarchy underlying and governing allinvestigated voice systems, its formal expression then being subject tocross-linguistic variation, albeit within the limits of verb morphology.

Furthermore, the author opts for an in-depth analysis of certain languagesand language families rather than discussion of relevant facts in a largesample. It therefore provides a very thorough and detailed account of voicephenomena in a rather small number of language families. Even though thesample shows a considerable degree of diversity, the typological claimsshould nevertheless be tested against a broader spectrum of languages infuture studies.

Despite these minor points of criticism the book makes an importantcontribution to typological research and most significantly theunderstanding of predicate-argument structure and its organizing mechanismson more than one level of grammar.

Andreas Jäger is interested in the grammar of verbs, verbal categories andtheir cross-linguistic encoding as well as the critical evaluation andcomparison of grammatical frameworks with respect to particular phenomenasuch as verb periphrasis. He has done typological research on periphrasticconstructions and speech representation.